The National tribune., 1887-02-24
TIE PENSION BILL.
The Unanimous Voice Of the House
Committee
In Favor OF Its Passage over
the President Veto.

fixed for the consideration OF the report the
fun text of which is as follows;
The Committee on Invalid Pensions TO whom
was submitted the bill III. r.. 1880 for the re-
lief Of dependent parents, and honorably-dls-
charged soldiers aud sailors, who are now DIS
abled and dependent upon their own labor Tor
support and the message Of the President,
stating his objections thereto having had said
bin and accompanying message under consld-
eration respectfully submit the following:
Two facts will arrest the attention OF any
one who reads the message under considera-
ton the first is that no objection is made 10
the bin on any ground of its constitutionality.
The right OF Congress TO enact the law Il not
questioned: all the questions raised are ques.
lions of mere expedicncy. The other is that
the first section Of the bill is not touched upon
by the message, and no mtimation is given by
the President as to whether that section OF
itself alone embodying as il does an independ-
ent proposition, and in the precise form specit-
cally urged by the Secretary Of the Interior IN
his last annual report. meets with has approval
or disapproyal.
The message is devoted wholly TO the second
section of the bill aud this report is INTENDED
TO meet the objections the President has seen
fit 10 urge against that
The subec.-matters embraced IN the second
section have since the earliest days of this Con-
gress, received the earnest and continued at
tention Of this committee, and brief history
of what has been done may not be altogether
uninteresiing, and indeed, seems TO be made
necessary, in order that a more thorough I'M
Outstanding of the facts may be had.
The bill appears TO have been introduced by
the writer of this report, and was so introduced
on the 10th Of January, 1887 Months before
that time, however, except as TO the fourth Sec
tiOn Of said bill, the bill had been agreed upon
by this committee after long, careful and eX-
1fe1 nug
directed that any privilege belonging TO il as a
committee should not be allowed TO escape
without an attempt TO pass the bill IN the
House.
When this Congress met number Of impor-
tant matters of general pension legislation were
pressed upon the attention Of the cOmmitte;
some Of them IN our judgment, involving the
expenditure of more money than is caused 10y
this bill. The arrears proposition was pressed
with great force and earnestness; a propo.
sitiOn TO equalize bOunties, TO pension prisoners
of war and a general service pension bill Ia
pension all the soldiers of the Union at S. per
month, besides many others of less magnitude
but each having its especial champions, who
were continuously contending for precedence
before your committee. The conclusion was
that the really INDECENT soldiers were first OF
all entitled to some relief and that relief TO
them would satisfy. in a measure, the demands
for many other kinds of legislation; and with
this IN view your committee went to work to
frame bill upon which wecOuld all agree and
which we believed, in that regard, would meet
the immediate needs Of our ex-soldiers, as well
Is the approval of the country.
On the LIST day OF March, 1856, Mr.. Elisberry,
of Ohio, introduced bill III. r. 623O) entitled
"a bin granting pensions TO all invalid soldiers,
or their widows, of the United States in the
late civil war who are dependent upon their
daily labor for support" The first section OF
this bill out Of Difference TO the gentleman who
was its author, as he had so persistently pressed
us TO give the subject preference over all other
measures was taken as the frame work for the
bill agreed upon by the committee 1t will he
ascertained upon examination that the Els
berry bin provides pension for a total disabil
ity, and also for an "inferioF disability an
amount prOportiOnate 10 that" and so when
the criticism was first made in relation TO the
bill now under consideration that the class OF
pensions embraced by said bill was not well
defined, this committee set about, with some
apprehension, 10 inquire whether there was
that yagueness or ambiguity that laid it open
10 the objections stated.
After the most painstaking, candid, and judi
cial consideration of the subject, we are com
PEELED TO insist that the construction given j
by the committee, as stated upon the floor o
the House al the time the bill passed. is the onl,
fair Interpretation 20 beput upon il. ltproyide
per month, and is given for total inability &
procure a subsistence by daily labor" There
mo- provision for any less rate, nor for any les
degree of disability than a total inability an
il is further provided that such pension shal
continue during the existence Of the disabilit
in the degree herein provided" What degree
There is but the one provided for and that
q degree of total inability TO procure a sui
sistence by daily labor. The point we wish {
emphasize is that but one pension is PROVIDED
and to obtain il a degree Of total inability {
procure subsistence by daily labor must l
shown, and that il is further expressly state
that the pension shall only continue while tha
degree Of inability continues.
By some strange circumstance this provsio
OF the bill which fixes the time during whic
the pension provided for shall continue, an
states as aptly rs language can state anythh
that IL shall be in the degree provided {,
therein, has escaped the attention Of the Ext
cutve and other critics referred 10 by him, VII
seek to place a construction upon the bill diffe
ent from that which was clearly intended an
which we believe is clearly expressed. All ayr,
tiat the bill embraces those who have lii
degree Of total inability. The only Questio
al issue is whether il does not embrace MOI
than that class. In the light of the EXPIRE
Limitation that is placed by the bin as 10 n
time during which the pension shall cOntnu
we submit with confidence 10 the discrimina
ing judgment Of the House aud the countr
that but one construction can be given IT, an
that is the one adopted by your committee.
But the President says that " ii the bill ha
been intended 10 embrace only those who we
totally unable TO labor il would have been vel
easy 10 express that idea instead Of recognizin
a. is done, degree of such inability" TIL
may be true, but the question is not wheth
tie language is the most apt 90 give expressiC
10 an idea, but rather what is the idea express
and what is intended by the bill and in vie
OF the fact that the last words used in the bi
and words which prescribe the right TO a De
Sion 10 exist only in one class who have d
degree" Of disability provided for, entirely e
cludes the construction sought 10 be given
the President that more than one class won
be included.
These words are used in prescribing the rig
70 a pension under the bill and are not me
words of description. Taken altogether, a,
not so dclicately analysed that the refneme
OF a chemical experiment is exceeded in
effort 70 do away with the plain provisions
the bill, we again submit TO the Judgment
the House and the country that those w
framed the bill, after months of careful, {
Hibernate consultation, have made no mistal
and have embraced but one class and that al;
can be well described ms those totally unaI
10 labor" and "who are dependent upon III
daily labor for support"
But il is asked what is a support, and how
IL 10 be fairly determined2 The answer 20 q
is that this very question for % years has be
adjudicated by the Pension Office and in u
haps more than 10000 cases. Whenever ella
has been made by dependent father, one
The material Inquiries was, was the claims
himself, at the time of the death of the solid
happening IN some cases many years befo